DMB said: Hypochondria and therapy are similar analogies? Matt: Are they not?
DMB said: Isn't the question about whether or not SOM is a real problem or a fake one? Matt: Sort of. More like, "In what way fake." Didn't you, after all, call SOM a case of "hypochondria," which is I thought a fake illness with real effects. I thought that was an excellent analogy for dealing with the problem. DMB said: Isn't the question about whether or not our concepts can have a blind spot with respect to DQ? Matt: Well, that wasn't my formulation of the question. DMB said: What do you and/or Wittgenstein mean by "therapy" such that it's relevant or similar to my assertion that SOM is a real problem? Matt: What you meant by calling it "hypochondria." It's a disorder that needs to be treated and worked through. It's real until the person can be shown how it isn't. DMB said: Wouldn't therapy be some kind of cure while hypochondria is some kind of illness? Matt: Isn't the MoQ some kind of cure while SOM is some kind of illness? DMB said: And doesn't Pirsig do exactly what Wittgenstein insist we can't do, which is talk about the ineffable. Wouldn't his stance preclude or even forbid the MOQ? Matt: Well, this might be more minutiae than we need for the broad-scale agreement. (And I'm not sure Wittgenstein and Pirsig exactly differ on the ineffable as you say.) Sometimes you like to dismiss people for a thing they said without bothering to much articulate any depth to an incongruity. It reminds me of Pirsig's initial dismissal of James (and how he came around later). Hey, if you sense that there isn't much purpose in coming to understand Wittgenstein, I'm not going to tell you you have to. We all make judgements for ourselves and what lines of thought we're going to pursue. DMB said: I thought you were asking me to reconcile an apparent contradiction in the MOQ. Was that not the case? Was that not successful? Matt: I guess you missed the part where I had been approaching cautiously my own answer, and how it looks similar to yours. When I prompted you for a reconciliation, it was prompting you to deal with the problem I was dealing with, which you hadn't the first time (by not explicitly dealing with Pirsig's collapse of the experience/reality distinction). You then did deal with it, and I think successfully, but then that's also because I take it to be the same thing I'd want to say, and I after all think my answer is somewhat successful. Thanks for carefully reading! Matt Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
